Thoughts from the interface of science, religion, law and culture

After spending several years touring the country as a stand up comedian, Ed Brayton tired of explaining his jokes to small groups of dazed illiterates and turned to writing as the most common outlet for the voices in his head. He has appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show and the Thom Hartmann Show, and is almost certain that he is the only person ever to make fun of Chuck Norris on C-SPAN.

EVENTS

Pat Buchanan Hearts Vladimir Putin

Pat Buchanan writes a love letter to Vladimir Putin, calling him a beacon of “moral clarity” (read: authoritarianism). Given Buchanan’s lifelong love of dictatorial strongmen, this is hardly a surprise. But some of the arguments he makes along the way are rather entertaining.

With America clearly in mind, Putin declared, “In many countries today, moral and ethical norms are being reconsidered.”

“They’re now requiring not only the proper acknowledgment of freedom of conscience, political views and private life, but also the mandatory acknowledgment of the equality of good and evil.”

Translation: While privacy and freedom of thought, religion and speech are cherished rights, to equate traditional marriage and same-sex marriage is to equate good with evil.

No moral confusion here, this is moral clarity, agree or disagree.

President Reagan once called the old Soviet Empire “the focus of evil in the modern world.” President Putin is implying that Barack Obama’s America may deserve the title in the 21st century.

This isn’t “moral clarity,” it’s merely simplistic moral coercion. The notion that same-sex marriage, or homosexuality in general, is a moral issue at all depends solely on allegedly divine command. If you don’t accept the Bible’s hopelessly outdated and childish commandments in this regard, there is no moral issue at all when two consenting adults love each other or just want to have sex with one another, regardless of their gender. Indeed, I would argue that the only moral dimension to it at all is in the immorality of imposing one’s religious beliefs on another person and discriminating against them. That is immoral. Two men or two women having sex has no moral dimension at all as long as it is consensual.

Nor is he without an argument when we reflect on America’s embrace of abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, pornography, promiscuity, and the whole panoply of Hollywood values.

Our grandparents would not recognize the America in which we live.

Of course they wouldn’t. They’d be astonished that we have a black president or that we don’t discriminate against black people, women and gay people in all the ways that we used to. This is moral progress, not regression.

Moreover, Putin asserts, the new immorality has been imposed undemocratically.

The “destruction of traditional values” in these countries, he said, comes “from the top” and is “inherently undemocratic because it is based on abstract ideas and runs counter to the will of the majority of people.”

Does he not have a point?

Unelected justices declared abortion and homosexual acts to be constitutionally protected rights. Judges have been the driving force behind the imposition of same-sex marriage.

Except the majority of Americans support a woman’s right to choose. And an overwhelming majority of Americans support protecting gay people from discrimination, with a smaller majority now supporting marriage equality as well. And I have absolutely no idea what “because it is based on abstract ideas” could possibly mean. That’s Palin-level gibberish.

Attorney General Eric Holder refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.

No Pat, that’s a lie. DOMA was enforced all along until the Supreme Court struck down the key section of it. Not defending it in court is not the same thing as not enforcing it. In fact, if they had not enforced it there would have been no court case for it to be overturned. This is not a difficult distinction to grasp, so I can only assume that Buchanan is lying rather than merely ignorant.

colnago80“The pickeling of Buchanan’s brain by booze began in high school. My former supervisor went to high school with Buchanan in DC and found him to be a drunk at that time.”
You’d get drunk too if you found out you were Pat Buchanan.

In his speech, Putin cited Russian philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev whom Solzhenitsyn had hailed for his courage in defying his Bolshevik inquisitors. Though no household word, Berdyaev is favorably known at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal.

Which raises this question: Who is writing Putin’s stuff?

Apparently the President of Russia learns about Russian historical figures from an obscure group in Michigan.He couldn’t possibly know something about his own country that didn’t come via an American source.

Why does Pat Buchanan hate America? I ask because the anti-gay law in Russia was deemed to be non-discriminatory by the IOC precisely because it treats everyone equally – No one can argue LGBT people are equal human beings. So the law is a fundamental attack on the freedom of speech, and isn’t that one of those great freedoms our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us in their divinely-inspired Bill of Rights, or something? I guess when you’re a self-loathing closet case (allegedly), all that matters is Vlad hates the same people you do.

Our grandparents would not recognize the America in which we live.

My grandparents were freaked out that my Catholic mother married my Protestant father and extended members of both families refused to attend the wedding. Is that the country to which we really want to return?

So Obama should be more like Putin? Perhaps Buchanan would like our president better if he signed the Kyoto Protocol, created an office of Prime Minister to sidestep constitutional term limits, seized the authority to appoint and dismiss state governors, and had his political rivals thrown in prison.

Perhaps Buchanan would like our president better if he signed the Kyoto Protocol, created an office of Prime Minister to sidestep constitutional term limits, seized the authority to appoint and dismiss state governors, and had his political rivals thrown in prison.

Apart from the first one I’d imagine he would be fine if a Republican president did those things.

The exact levels depend on wording, and I don’t turn up any using that exact wording. However, the GSS data indicates only about 2-in-5 support women having an unrestricted right to abortion for “any reason”, with majority support clear only in US Census Region 1 (New England); Gallup indicates roughly a 1:2:1 split of support for no restrictions vs some restrictions vs total ban, a near 1:1 split on pro-life versus pro-choice, and that lately opponents of the overturn of Roe V Wade have been loosing ground to “no opinion”. There are some question wordings that point to majority support (Quinnipiac University, “In general, do you agree or disagree with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion?”, circa 2:1 say agree), but they seem more exception than rule.

America is depressingly divided on the question, with neither supporters nor opponents of a woman’s right to choose having any clear upper hand.

abb3w“America is depressingly divided on the question, with neither supporters nor opponents of a woman’s right to choose having any clear upper hand.”
Don’t worry your pretty little head about it, Toots. We’ve got the Republican party to stand up, push aside polls, and make a woman’s choice for her.
No unelected government bureaucrat should stand between a woman and her doctor. That’s what elected representatives are for.